What is a Smart Gun?

A personalized gun, or smart gun, is a concept firearm that is designed to reduce the misuse of
firearms through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic
rings, or a microchip implant.

Advantages[edit]

Proponents of smart gun technology say that the technology would reduce or eliminate accidental use
and misuse of firearms by children and teens, as well as reducing accidental discharges or the use of a
firearm against its owner if the firearm is stolen or taken away.[2]
Legislation[edit]

In the United States, New Jersey was the first state to enact an eventual mandate for smart guns.
Governor Jim McGreevey signed the Childproof Handgun Bill into state law on December 23, 2002,
which will eventually require that all guns sold in the state of New Jersey have a mechanism to
prevent unauthorized users from firing it.[3] Weapons used by law enforcement officers would be
exempt from the smart gun requirement. However, this law will only take effect three years after such
a smart gun is approved by the state.[4][5][6] In May of 2014, hours after the publication of an article
in Forbes by Joseph Steinberg, in which he criticized the New Jersey law for "delaying the production
of truly safer and 'smarter' handguns" by incenting "gun manufacturers who earn a tremendous
amount of profit from the sales of conventional firearms... not to develop smartguns if by doing so
they will cause their flagship product lines to become unsellable," New Jersey State Senate Majority
leader, Loretta Weinberg, who had originally sponsored the New Jersey bill while serving in the State
Assembly, stated that she would consider repealing the law if, after doing so, the National Rifle
Association would agree not to impede the development of better smartguns. [7]
In April 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder told a House appropriations subcommittee that his
agency is exploring smart gun technology as a means for curbing gun violence. The Justice

Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for
"gun safety," a figure which includes $2 million for "Gun Safety Technology" grants, which would
award prizes for technologies that are "proven to be reliable and effective." [8]
In October 2013 the European Commission published a document by commissioner Cecilia
Malmstrm, stating that "he Commission will work with the firearms industry to explore
technological solutions, such as biometric sensors where personal data is stored in the firearm, for
ensuring that purchased firearms may only be used by their legal owner. It will carry out a detailed
cost-benefit analysis on the question of making such 'smart gun' security features mandatory for
firearms lawfully sold in the EU."[9]
Magnetic devices[edit]

The Magna-Trigger system for K- through N-frame size Smith and Wesson revolvers prevents the
trigger from returning far enough to fire. It was developed by Joe Davis in 1975, and has proven
reliable. This system will work ambidextrously, provided the magnetic rings used are worn on both
hands.[10]
The Magloc conversion kit for 1911A1 pistols works by preventing the handgun from firing unless a
magnetic ring worn by the user repels the magnetic blocking device installed inside the grip. [11] Once
the system is activated using the matching magnetic ring, the owner can switch the over-ride switch to
the on position and allow anyone to fire the pistol.[12]
Prototypes[edit]
Metal Storm[edit]

Australian defense company Metal Storm made a prototype electronic 'smart' personalized handgun
called the O'Dwyer VLe. It utilized biometric authorizing technology and was the world's first 100%
electronic handgun. It also incorporated Metal Storm's patented 'stacked projectile' technology, which,
in cohesion with the nature of the weapon system itself, meant that there was no moving parts, no
separate magazine, no ammunition feed, and it outstripped conventional firing systems. [13]

Mossberg[edit]

In 1999, Mossberg Shotguns, through its subsidiary Advanced Ordnance and an electronics design
contractor known as KinTech Manufacturing developed a Smart shotgun usingRFID technology.
This product is currently being marketed by IGun Technology Corp. The advantage with this design
was that the ring worn by the owner and used to identify the owner has a passive tag (meaning no
batteries) that relies on proximity to the shotgun for power. The battery pack in the shotgun is
designed to last up to 10 years when not used or up to 8 hours of continual usage (meaning always
ready to be fired). The shotgun has low-battery indication.
Mossberg has trademarked the term "Smart gun". [14]
New Jersey Institute of Technology[edit]

A current prototype personalized gun by New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) relies
on biometric sensors in the grip and trigger that can track a gun owners hand size, strength, and
Dynamic grip style also known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition. The gun is programmed to
recognize only the owner or anyone whom the owner wishes to authorize. One of the major projects
involves the NJIT team, which claims the prototype identifies gun owners with 90% accuracy. [15]
Colt[edit]

Initial prototypes produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company involved the intended user wearing a
bracelet that emitted a radio signal that would activate a mechanism inside the pistol to allow the
handgun to be fired. The project was apparently scrapped over concerns of the batteries in the bracelet
and the pistol failing.[16]
TriggerSmart[edit]

Patrick O'Shaughnessy, owner of the Irish company Triggersmart, has patented and achieved a
working prototype of a personalized gun in 2012 that works using radio-frequency identification
(RFID) technology.[17] TriggerSmart's Robert McNamara has spoken with US Attorney General, Eric
Holder, at the White House and he and O'Shaughnessy met with and discussed smart guns with the

United Nations in Berlin and New York. The NIJ featured TriggerSmart when it issued its report on
Smart Guns in 2013.[18] [19]
BIOMAC[edit]

A U.S. and Austrian company introduced a system that employs a biometric array of up to eight
optical sensors which will be molded into the handle of the firearm. [20] None of the optical sensors will
rely on geographic parameters, like fingerprints, but will measure biometric data below the skin. The
biometric access technology which will be developed byBIOMAC will allow authorized gun owners
to program the biometrics of up to eleven additional users into their weapon. All previous systems
having been developed or which are being considered rely on one user per weapon. The biometric
data programmed into the weapon will be done at authorized weapon dealers, and will remain in the
weapon. BIOMAC's goal of a 99.99 percent reliability rate with recognition occurring in .5 seconds or
less, if reached, will be the fastest and most reliable smart gun technology on the market. BIOMAC
envisions licensing all weapon companies their technology for a nominal cost. The retrofitting of
existing weapons with BIOMAC's patent-pending technology will be done through the Biomac
Foundation, with all profits from the retrofitting going to victims of global violence. [21] For military
and police use the biometrics of soldiers and/or law enforcement will be printed on a wearable device,
like a wrist band, which once worn will allow the soldier and/or any other police officer wearing the
biometric wrist band to pick up any biometric weapon programmed for their organization. The wrist
bands will not be usable by anyone other than the people they have been programmed for. In this
manner every soldier will be able to use any military weapon they may need to fire, and not have to
have their individual biometrics programmed into the weapon.
Armatix[edit]

A German company, Armatix, has developed the innovative Armatix iP1 pistol that comes with a
special wrist watch which uses radio frequencies to identify the user.[22]

WPW-Lock[edit]

In autumn 2012 a new method was presented by its inventor.[23] Starting with the simple question
"Where does a weapon belong?" he concluded: In its owner's hand or in its owner's holster, and
nowhere else! Using this logic, he recognized, a huge variety of solutions are possible, even those
only by means of traditional, simple, and proven mechanics as it is installed by default in any weapon,
and a safety lock. The new principle is: The firearm is unlocked by a release member (key, RFID,
barcode, etc.) and the active state is maintained by a grip sensor (mechanical lever, any electronic
sensor such as e.g. ultrasound). In example with a holster: If the weapon is pulled out of the holster, it
is always activated automatically as long as its owner constantly holds it in his hand. The moment the
owner lays the weapon aside or it is knocked out of his hand, a security automatically clicks into place
which not only makes it impossible for any more shots to be fired, but it also prevents the
disassembling of the weapon in order to remove the blocking device. A new activation is only possible
by means of a release member in the own holster, by putting the weapon in it and taking it out once
more if necessary. Electronic designs can use an electronic key like an NFC-chip which is mounted in
a holster or in a watch or somewhere else on the body.
Innovation Initiative[edit]

Sandy Hook Promise, a group of parents of the Sandy Hook massacre, have launched an Innovation
Initiative with members of the Silicon Valley technology community. This initiative will advocate for
providing breakthroughs in new gun technology by providing grant and prize moneys. [24]
The smart gun is supposed to:

Reduce the likelihood of unintentional injuries to children

Preventing teenage suicides and homicides.

Limit the violent acts committed by criminals using stolen guns.

Protect law enforcement officers from criminals grabbing their firearms during a struggle.

If chip failure occurs one of two things can happen:

For civilian use, the gun will be set to not fire.

For law enforcement use, the safety system will be bypassed, and the gun will be allowed to
fire.

Criticism[edit]

Smart guns have been criticized by gun-rights groups like the NRA[25] as well as by gun-control
groups like the Violence Policy Center. Gun rights groups generally feel that smart gun technology is
an attempt to control citizen ownership of firearms. The Violence Policy Center feels smart guns will
make firearm ownership more commonplace by making firearms seem safer.[26]
Many firearm enthusiasts object to smart guns on a philosophical and regulatory basis as well as a
technological basis. Gun ownership advocate Kenneth W. Royce, writing under the pen name of
"Boston T. Party", wrote that "no defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more
advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices
and microcomputers. Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to
fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty". [27]
In an article in Forbes, information security expert, Joseph Steinberg, discussed several technological
shortcomings with smartguns that might create new, serious safety issues for gun owners and nonowners alike. Among them were claims that biometrics take time to process and are often inaccurate
especially when a user is under duress as is likely going to be the case in any situation in which he
needs to brandish a gun, it is not ideal to add a requirement for power to devices utilized in cases of
emergency that did not need electricity previously. How many fire codes allow fire extinguishers that
require a battery to operate?, smartguns might be hackable or even susceptible to government
tracking or jamming, and Firearms must be able to be disassembled in order to be cleaned and
maintained. One of the principles of information security is that someone who has physical access to a
machine can undermine its security. [28]

The potential effects of New Jersey's smart gun law has also influenced opposition to the technology
in the United States; two attempts to commercially market the Armatix iP1 smart gun in the California
and Maryland were met with immediate opposition from gun rights groups, who argued that allowing
the gun to be sold in the United States would trigger the law. The NRA also briefly boycott Smith &
Wesson after it was revealed in 1999 that the company was developing a smart gun for the U.S.
government.[6][4]
Gun Rights side proposes that smart guns will be detrimental to the second amendment of the
constitution which states that every citizen has the constitutional right to bear arms. As per them,
smart guns defy the purpose of self-protection as it might fail to respond quickly in an emergency
(which might be due to unavailability of the accompanying radio device at the moment).
While the gun control side see it as a mere tool to take away the real issue off the radar. They have
maintained that the introduction of smart guns is going to have a negligent effect on reducing the gun
violence for the apparent reason that people use their own guns anyway when committing acts of gunviolence. They have gone further and suggested that it will actually end up deterring governments
focus from gun-violence research.

'Smart Guns,' Designed To Be Fired Only By Owner, Have Battled History

NEW YORK (AP) It sounds, at first, like a bold, next-generation solution: personalizing guns with
technology that keeps them from firing if they ever get into the wrong hands.
But when the White House called for pushing ahead with such new technology as part of President
Obama's plan to cut gun violence, the administration did not mention the concept's embattled past. As
with so much else in the nation's long-running divisions over gun rights and regulation, what sounds
like a futuristic vision is, in fact, an idea that has been kicked around for years, sidelined by intense
suspicion, doubts about feasibility and pressure tactics.

Now proponents of so-called personalized or smart guns are hoping the nation's renewed attention on
firearms following the Newtown school massacre will kick start research and sale of safer weapons.
But despite the Obama administration's promise to "encourage the development of innovative gun
safety technology," advocates have good reason to be wary.
In the fiery debate over guns, personalized weapons have long occupied particularly shaky ground
an idea criticized both by gun-rights groups and some gun control advocates.
To the gun groups, the idea of using technology to control who can fire a gun smacks of a limitation
on personal rights, particularly if it might be mandated by government. At the same time, some gun
control advocates worry that such technology, by making guns appear falsely safe, would encourage
Americans to stock up on even more weapons then they already have in their homes.
Without the politics, the notion of using radio frequency technology, biometric sensors or other
gadgetry in a gun capable of recognizing its owner sounds like something straight out of James Bond.
In fact, it is. In the latest Bond flick, "Skyfall," Agent 007's quartermaster passes him a 9 mm pistol
coded to his palm print.
"Only you can fire it," the contact tells the agent. "Less of a random killing machine. More of a
personal statement."
In real life, though, there's no getting around the politics, and the debate over personalized guns long
ago strayed well beyond questions of whether the technology will work.
Those were the first questions asked in 1994 when the research arm of the Justice Department began
studying prospects of making a police gun that a criminal would not be able to fire if he wrestled it
away during a struggle. Scientists at Sandia National Laboratories examined available technology in
1996 and found it promising, but wanting.
By then the notion of a safe gun had long captivated Stephen Teret, a former attorney and public
health expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who had gone after automakers for not
including air bags in their cars. In 1983, he got a call that the 22-month-old son of a couple he knew
had been killed by a 4-year-old who found a loaded gun in a nightstand drawer.

"Very definitely, that was the genesis," said Teret, who went on to found Hopkins' Center for Gun
Policy and Research. "Because when one thinks of something as a public health person the first thing
is you're sick with grief and the second thing that comes to mind is why in the world would there be a
handgun operable by a 4-year-old?"
Teret began trying to get lawmakers and gun makers interested in the concept of personalized
weapons. He convinced Democratic U.S. Rep. Pat Schroeder to earmark funding for the Justice study.
And in the mid-1990s he voiced support for a project at Colt's Manufacturing Co., the legendary but
beleaguered gun maker that saw an opportunity to sell safe guns to police officers and parents of
young children.
Colt's developed a gun equipped with a microchip that would prevent it from firing unless the user
was wearing an enabling device located in a special wristband. But gun rights activists were skeptical,
partly because the government was funding research of the concept and because gun control
advocates like Teret embraced it. At about the same time, New Jersey lawmakers began discussing a
measure requiring all new handguns sold in the state to be personalized, three years after the
technology came to market. The measure passed in 2002.
Owners' skepticism was heightened in 1997 when Colt's CEO Ronald Stewart wrote an editorial in
American Firearms Industry magazine calling on fellow manufacturers to parry gun control efforts by
backing a federal gun registry and developing personalized weapons.
"While technology such as this should not be mandated it should be an option for the consumer,"
Stewart wrote. "If we can send a motorized computer to Mars, then certain we can advance our
technology to be more childproof."
Stewart did not respond to a message seeking comment left at a Connecticut company where he now
serves on the board of directors.
Soon after, the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen a state affiliate of the National Rifle
Association began calling for a boycott of Colt's. It warned that personalized technology might
make it difficult for gun owners to defend themselves and called the company's conduct "detrimental
to American-style freedoms and liberties."

Stewart was replaced as CEO of Colt's in 1998 and the company eventually abandoned development
of a personalized gun.
In 1999, New Jersey's lawmakers approved a grant to researchers at New Jersey Institute of
Technology to study personalized gun technology. Those efforts focused on adding transducers to a
gun's handle to detect the grasp of an authorized user. Meanwhile, the Justice Department offered a
challenge grant to gun makers and although two responded, they made limited headway by the time
$7 million in funding ran out.
Work on personalized weapons suffered another setback after gun rights' groups boycotted Smith &
Wesson over a 2000 agreement it signed with the Clinton administration in which the manufacturer
made numerous promises, including one to develop smart guns.
Meanwhile, the New Jersey school, funded by Congressional earmarks, tried repeatedly to find a
commercial partner for its work. But even as NJIT bolstered the reliability of its prototype, which now
has a recognition rate of about 97 percent, it found it a hard sell. Talks with a Florida gun maker at
first seemed productive until industry activists pressured the company to back away, said Donald
Sebastian, NJIT's senior vice president for research and development .
"Their claim that these are just blue state liberals looking to take your guns away, it just inflames
people to not think a little more rationally," Sebastian said.
"Yes it's a frustrating experience, but we have to be adults," he said. "I think it's been a long lesson to
learn that this intermingling of the concepts of gun safety and gun control are ultimately poison."
Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gun
manufacturers, said questions remain about whether the technology has been improved enough to
assure police officers and civilians a personalized weapon would fire when they need protection. But
there are also concerns "about individual consumers' ability to choose the firearm that they think is
best for them," Bazinet said.
But gun makers and owners have not been the only critics. Activists from the Violence Policy Center,
an outspoken gun control group, also spoke against personalized weapons.

"If a smart gun did exist what would its effect be, taking into consideration the nature of gun violence
in this country?" said Josh Sugarmann, the group's executive director. "Would you place families at
risk or people at risk by giving this impression that this is a safe gun? You know, people who wouldn't
normally buy a gun, would they buy one now?"
NJIT's Sebastian, who joined a group of personalized gun advocates who met recently with Attorney
General Eric Holder to push for their development, said his school has seen some renewed interest
and is talking with officials at Picatinny Arsenal, which develops weapons for the U.S. military.
Meanwhile, two European companies working on personalized gun technology have their eyes on the
U.S. market. One of those firms, TriggerSmart Ltd. of Limerick, Ireland, has developed a system
using Radio Frequency Identification that would be built into the handle of a gun and triggered by a
device the size of a grain of rice inside a user's ring or bracelet. Co-founder Robert McNamara said he
is seeking to license the technology to a U.S. manufacturer, but is looking at the possibility of
producing kits for retrofitting existing guns.
Another venture, Armatix GmbH of Unterfoehring, Germany, says it has developed a personalized
gun, with settings based on radio frequency technology and biometrics, that was approved by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in late 2011. Armatix said it hopes to begin selling the gun
as well as accompanying safety and locking systems in the U.S. this year, but would not provide
details.
Teret, who long ago launched the campaign for personalized guns, acknowledged much has to happen
before they become a reality. But the White House has promised to issue a report on the technology
and award prizes to companies that come up with innovative and cost-effective personalized guns, and
its interest has rejuvenated hopes that the gun of the future may actually have one.
"For 30 years, at best we've been inching forward at a glacial pace," he said. "And now this puts it up
to warp speed."

The self-aiming rifle has a surprising opponent: the NRA

After a lot of anticipation, the futuristic self-aiming rifle is here. It allows anyone, regardless of skill,

to hit a moving target up to 1,200 yards away on the first go.

Developed by Austin-based TrackingPoint, the "precision-guided firearm" can be bought for

$22,000 to $27,000 a piece. According to company president Jason Schauble, it uses a variant of the

lock-and-launch technology fighter pilots use to fire missiles. New Scientist explains:

The tracking system includes a computer, laser rangefinder, camera, and color display in a

sighting scope mounted on top.

You track your quarry on the display (pictured) and push a button near the trigger to lock a

red laser dot on the target.

After you choose a target, the weapon decides when best to shoot -- compensating for things

like wind speed, arm shake, recoil, temperature, humidity, and curvature of the earth.

An algorithm uses image-processing to keep the laser dot on the target as it moves.

The algorithm increases pressure required to pull the trigger, reducing it when the blue

crosshairs are right over the red dot -- thats when a bullet is fired.

There's also Wi-Fi to stream imagery to an iPad (included), so shooters can share what theyre

seeing on Facebook or YouTube.

The scope can be password protected, making the rifle function as an ordinary weapon.

The Kalman Filter

Description

Algorithm

Filtering Process

Reference
Description
This section describes the example used by the tutorial. You do not have to be familiar with the
algorithm to complete the tutorial.

The example for this tutorial uses a Kalman filter to estimate the position of an object moving in a
two-dimensional space from a series of noisy inputs based on past positions. The position vector has
two components, x and y, indicating its horizontal and vertical coordinates.
Kalman filters have a wide range of applications, including control, signal and image processing;
radar and sonar; and financial modeling. They are recursive filters that estimate the state of a linear
dynamic system from a series of incomplete or noisy measurements. The Kalman filter algorithm
relies on the state-space representation of filters and uses a set of variables stored in the state vector to
characterize completely the behavior of the system. It updates the state vector linearly and recursively
using a state transition matrix and a process noise estimate.
Algorithm
This section describes the algorithm of the Kalman filter and is implemented in the MATLAB version
of the filter supplied with this tutorial.
The algorithm predicts the position of a moving object based on its past positions using a Kalman
filter estimator. It estimates the present position by updating the Kalman state vector, which includes
the position (x and y), velocity (Vxand Vy), and acceleration (Ax and Ay) of the moving object. The
Kalman state vector, x_est, is a persistent variable.
% Initial conditions
persistent x_est p_est
if isempty(x_est)
x_est = zeros(6, 1);
p_est = zeros(6, 6);
end
x_est is initialized to an empty 6x1 column vector and updated each time the filter is used.
The Kalman filter uses the laws of motion to estimate the new state:
X=X +Vx.dtY=Y +Vy.dtVx=Vx +Ax.dtVy=Vy +Ay.dt
0
0
0
0
These laws of motion are captured in the state transition matrix A, which is a matrix that contains the
coefficient values of x, y, Vx, Vy, Ax, and Ay.

% Initialize state transition matrix

dt=1;
A=[ 1 0 dt 0 0 0;...
0 1 0 dt 0 0;...
0 0 1 0 dt 0;...
0 0 0 1 0 dt;...
0 0 0 0 1 0 ;...
0 0 0 0 0 1 ];
Filtering Process
The filtering process has two phases:

Predicted state and covariance

The Kalman filter uses the previously estimated state, x_est, to predict the current state, x_prd. The
predicted state and covariance are calculated in:
% Predicted state and covariance
x_prd = A * x_est;
p_prd = A * p_est * A' + Q;

Estimation
The filter also uses the current measurement, z, and the predicted state, x_prd, to estimate a more
accurate approximation of the current state. The estimated state and covariance are calculated in:
% Measurement matrix
H = [ 1 0 0 0 0 0; 0 1 0 0 0 0 ];
Q = eye(6);
R = 1000 * eye(2);
% Estimation

S = H * p_prd' * H' + R;
B = H * p_prd';
klm_gain = (S \ B)';

% Estimated state and covariance

x_est = x_prd + klm_gain * (z - H * x_prd);
p_est = p_prd - klm_gain * H * p_prd;

% Compute the estimated measurements

y = H * x_est;
Reference
Haykin, Simon. Adaptive Filter Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1996.
Files for the Tutorial

About the Tutorial Files

Location of Files

Names and Descriptions of Files

About the Tutorial Files
The tutorial uses the following files:

Simulink model files for each step of the tutorial.

Summer Training Project Report

TOPIC: Transforming guns into Smart Guns capable of locating and
tracking targets.

Submitted By:
Sparsh Jain
11104080
Electronics and Communication
Engineering
NIT Jalandhar